Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was confused. So if a restaurant has a document posted on their window that meets only 1/3 requirements listed under (B), then it's an incorrect posting and I can carry inside legally?JohnKSa wrote:Right--the part about the card or document applies to something delivered in some manner directly to the person being notified.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?”
- Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:13 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
- Replies: 1085
- Views: 371667
- Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:09 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
- Replies: 1085
- Views: 371667
- Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:43 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
- Replies: 1085
- Views: 371667
I'm just curious because there is a rather ambiguous "OR" in the statute:
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
_(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; OR
_(B) a sign posted on the property that:
___(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
___(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
___(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
That "or" leads me to believe that a prosecutor could justify a non-compliant posting.
Does it mean a card, document OR sign?
--or--
A card/document with that language OR a sign that meets the following requirements? Do the (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to both (A) and (B), or just (B)?
Please understand that I want the postings to be illegal b/c I want to carry in as many places as possible. I'm in no way trying to justify the postings, I just want to know if a prosecutor could rely on that in a trial. Can they Mr. Cotton?
Since we have a trial-attorney here, I think we're well informed, I just wanted to point that out to see if anyone else had noticed it.
BTW, I pulled that directly out of the state website, is it outdated?
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
_(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; OR
_(B) a sign posted on the property that:
___(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
___(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
___(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
That "or" leads me to believe that a prosecutor could justify a non-compliant posting.
Does it mean a card, document OR sign?
--or--
A card/document with that language OR a sign that meets the following requirements? Do the (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to both (A) and (B), or just (B)?
Please understand that I want the postings to be illegal b/c I want to carry in as many places as possible. I'm in no way trying to justify the postings, I just want to know if a prosecutor could rely on that in a trial. Can they Mr. Cotton?
Since we have a trial-attorney here, I think we're well informed, I just wanted to point that out to see if anyone else had noticed it.
BTW, I pulled that directly out of the state website, is it outdated?